AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being the AE and primarily acts as a support center to International SOS Singapore location. The assessee provides emergency assistance and support services to its members/clients of the AE. SOS India allows AEs members/clients to access its services through the SOS Singapore Alarm Centre. This enables clients of AE to access strong medical network of doctors, hospitals, clinics, and service providers across India. The assessee provides emergency assistance and support services to clients who are registered with the AE outside India and who are eligible to avail the services of the Group worldwide including India. During the year under consideration, the assessee, interalia, has entered into the international transaction to provide emergency assistance support services amounting to Rs. 23,77,46,801/- with its AE. 2.3. In TP documentation, for the purpose of benchmarking the international transaction, the appellant applied TNM method as the most appropriate method, considering itself to be the tested party and the Operating Profit/Operating Cost(OP/OC%) as the Profit Level Indicator(PIL). 2.4. The assessee selected the following 12 comparables whose average margin was 7.10% as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting assessment u/s 144C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at an income of Rs. 3,36,55,607/- as against the income of Rs. 2,00,60,075/- returned by the appellant; 2. That the AO erred on facts and in law in making an adjustment of Rs. 1,35,95,532/- in the 'international transactions' of business support services, on the basis of the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO"); 2.1 That the TPO/DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting the following companies from the set of comparable companies allegedly on the ground that the said companies were functionally not comparable to the appellant: i) Educational Consultants India Limited ii) India Tourism Development Corporation Limited 2.2 That the TPO/DRP erred on facts and in law in considering following companies in the final set of comparable companies allegedly holding them to be functionally comparable to the appellant: i) Apitco Limited ii) Global Procurement Consultant Limited iii) HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 2.3 That the TPO/DRP erred on facts and in law in not allowing economic adjustment with re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Access India Advisors Limited; ii) IDC (India) Limited. These two companies are accepted by both parties as comparable companies though the area in which they render service is different from that of the assessee company. 9. Before we examine each of the comparable companies, on which both parties have difference of opinion, we observe that both the assessee as well as the ld.DR have stated that, comparable companies, performing the same specified support services as that of the assessee company cannot be found, and hence only companies which have broad comparative functional profile of undertaking support services in other fields, have to be taken as comparables. This is for the reason that the assessee is specialized in providing emergency assistance and support services to the members/clients of AE. The functional profile of the assessee is given from para 1.1 page 1 of the TP report which is extracted for the ready reference: "International SOS P. Limited, Singapore SOS Singapore is one of the world's largest medical and security assistance organization as well as the leading provider of remote site medical services headquartered in Singapore. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces, companies providing specialized support services, in different fields, have to be accepted as comparable companies, for the purpose of bench marking, as their functions are broadly comparable with the functions of the assessee cpmpany. 11. We find that Access India Advisors Limited, provides advisory services, viz: i) Business advisory; ii) Management consultancy; iii) Regulatory Strategy and iv) Contend Development. This company was taken as the comparable company, by the assessee and was accepted by the revenue though the nature of services rendered are totally different from the nature of services rendered by the assessee company. This is because both the parties accept that the companies providing specialized support services should be adopted as a comparable company. Similarly in the case of M/s.IDC (I)Limited is a company providing marketing intelligence, advisory services for the information technology, telecommunication and consumer technology markets. This company has been accepted by both parties as comparable. Hence, companies rendering specialized services, though in functionally different areas, are accepted by both pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State Government and Central Government in the field of transportation etc. and primary working education, investment and taxation reforms. b) Related party transaction exceeds 25% of total Revenues; c) The assessee is owning intangible asset of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- in the form of technical knowhow and whereas ICRA has no intangible assets. 12.5 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the related party transaction actually does not exceed 14%, and hence the DRP is factually wrong. In any event ld. Counsel could not controvert the findings of the DRP, on the fact of ICRA not being in possession of intangible assets. When one company own intangible assets and when the other company does not own intangible assets, both cannot be compared. Thus, we have to uphold the order of the DRP and reject the claim of the assessee qua selection of ICRA, Management Consultancy Service Limited. 3. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. This company is a 100% Government of India owned company. In the case of M/s. ThyssenKrupp Industries India Pvt.Ltd., vs. Addl CIT Range(3), in ITA no. 6460/Mum/2012, the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal, has held that a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be taken as a comparable for the following reasons: a) This is not a 100% Government owned company as claimed by the assessee. Under the head "corporate synergy" it is stated that this company is co-promoted by the Export Import Bank of India as private sector Company along with a number of other Private Companies. b) The functional profile of this company is rendering of highly specialized procurement support services. The quality of service, the skills are comparable with the quality and skill of support services provided by the assessee, though in functionally different areas. As the ld. Counsel for the assessee has accepted before us that comparable companies rendering services in the same field as that of the assessee company cannot be found, companies rendering support services in other fields have to be taken as comparables. c) We have also perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The claim of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is based on the propositions laid down in this case law. If on such an argument, the comparable Global Procurement Consulting Limited is excluded, th....